The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The accused shall disclose the summary of the judgment of innocence.

1. The abstract of the grounds for appeal did not steals the bread;

2. On October 29, 2013, the Defendant: around 13:40 on October 29, 2013, at the convenience store operated by the victim D in Seongbuk-gu Seoul, Seongbuk-gu, Seoul, the Defendant: (a) committed theft by putting the victim’s convenience store with food as customers; (b) placing 1,000 won of the victim’s seat in the clothes and without calculating it.

3. The lower court determined as follows and sentenced the Defendant and the defense counsel to the charges of this case. A.

In full view of the facts that the Defendant first bred 1 bred and 2 bred and bred 1 bred, and then calculated bred 1 bred, but in full view of the fact that the Defendant was paying 1 bred and 20,000 bred 20,000 bred 1 bred, the Defendant may recognize the fact that he

B. The defendant and his defense counsel did not think that the 1st place of bread was not calculated, so there was no intention of theft. However, considering the following, the victim consistently stated that the defendant reported CCTV to the police immediately after the case, the victim reported the damage to the police and prepared a written statement, and the defendant was difficult to understand that it was difficult to see 2nd place and 2nd place of the brea, even though the breath was in a free condition, it was difficult to say that it was difficult for the defendant to see the breath of the breath of the breath of the breath of the breath of the breath of the breath of the breath of the breath of the breath of the breath of the breath of the breath of the breath of the breath of the breath of the breath, and

4. Judgment of the court below

A. According to the record, according to CCTV images, the defendant 2 booms and 2 milk booms.